[138582] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Internet Edge Router replacement - IPv6 route
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dobbins, Roland)
Thu Mar 10 23:00:54 2011
From: "Dobbins, Roland" <rdobbins@arbor.net>
To: nanog group <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 04:00:46 +0000
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC14054@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 11, 2011, at 10:51 AM, George Bonser wrote:
> If you are a content provider, it doesn't make any difference if they ta=
ke down the links between your routers or if they take down the link that y=
our content farm is on.
Of course, it does - you may have many content farms/instances, and taking =
down point-to-point links can DoS your entire set of farms/instances, where=
as an attack against a given endpoint access network doesn't necessarily me=
an that your other properties/networks/services are being attacked, as well=
.
Limiting this vector to endpoint access networks also makes mitigation mech=
anisms far more practicable.
There is no good reason to use /64s on point-to-point links. It is wastefu=
l (please, no more about the supposed infinitude of IPv6 addresses; some of=
us reject this as being shortsighted and insufficiently visionary concerni=
ng eventual one-time-uses of IPv6 addresses at nanoscale) and turns your ro=
uters into sinkholes. It is a Very Bad Idea.
;>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@arbor.net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com>
The basis of optimism is sheer terror.
-- Oscar Wilde
